David Staples: The case for investing billions in Edmonton bus rapid transit

Edmonton’s LRT plan has never been more on track, with stellar cheerleading from all three level of governments.

“We’re ready to go with rail,” Mayor Don Iveson says. “The federal funding is materializing, the provincial signals are very promising. The dollars will be there.”

With the LRT campaign in its moment of triumph, it seems like a good time to again ask if our LRT plan is indeed the best way to invest billions of public dollars. Compelling arguments to invest in a different kind of mass transit, bus rapid transit or BRT, were made recently at an Edmonton workshop by international transportation guru Gil Penalosa. BRT is also being pushed by the Edmonton Transit System Advisory Board, which recently presented a pro-BRT report to council.

The strongest argument for BRT is that if Edmonton is ever going to have a workable grid of high-speed mass transit, with dedicated lines running to all corners of the city, BRT is the only way to go because of cost. BRT costs $10 million to $20 million per kilometre to construct. LRT costs $40 million to $50 million per km.

So instead of building 40 km of LRT with the same funds in the next decade, we could build 120 to 150 km of BRT. It’s only such a vast citywide grid of quality transit that allows people to get around rapidly and easily on transit, BRT supporters say, and nudges them to give up their cars.

It’s important to note that BRT is a bus system unlike anything Edmonton has ever seen. The buses are articulated, bending in the middle, and capable of taking 80-plus passengers each. The BRT lines would have LRT-like stations and LRT-like boarding, with tickets purchased ahead of time. The buses will power fast through the city on dedicated lanes, separated from traffic and with the right-of-way at intersections, just like LRT. As engineer Izak Roux, outgoing chair of the transit advisory board, has put it: “BRT is the LRT lite. Or LRT on rubber, not on tracks.”

The advisory board suggests BRT go in first on the routes already selected for LRT. Once there’s enough demand for more service, LRT can go in, using the same stations and same dedicated lanes, with track put down on the existing pavement. With the BRT there first, however, city council will have a better idea of which BRT lanes are most heavily used and most deserving of an LRT upgrade.

It’s never easy to predict the future and to know which line will have the most ridership for LRT, but BRT lines would give solid data so the city doesn’t make a mistake putting in LRT where it’s not optimal, says University of Alberta professor Manish Shirgaokar, an expert in transportation planning. “It’s impossible to change fixed rail once it’s on the ground.”

So why stick with LRT?

Edmontonians favour LRT, Iveson says, so much so that if BRT went in, the old LRT lines would be a source of envy. “Edmontonians have an expectation. They want to see that rail system expanded to different parts of the city and (with new BRT instead of LRT) I think you’d set up a condition where you’d say, ‘Well, one part of the city got rail and we’re not good enough to get rail.’ And I don’t think you’d want to send that signal to people.”

Why else stick with LRT? The big reason is that bus rapid transit has lower capital costs, but higher operating costs, Iveson says. The main operating cost in a transit system is the driver’s salary, and that’s much higher on BRT, which needs more drivers. A BRT bus can only take 80 people, but one LRT driver can move 800 to 1,000 people. High-frequency LRT lines with packed cars can lead to efficiencies, Iveson says.

LRT also sends a signal to real estate investors that the city is fully committed to that spot and that transit line, Iveson says, which could lead to transit-oriented development.

Finally, when it comes to greenhouse gases and pollution, electric LRT is a better bet than diesel-powered BRT, Iveson says.

High-frequency express buses on future LRT corridors make sense, the mayor says, but not BRT, with fancy buses, stations and other infrastructure, which would later have to be retrofitted for LRT.

So where does that leave us? I’m leaning to BRT, but Iveson raises a good point: If BRT operating costs are significantly higher than LRT costs (something BRT supporters deny), that’s a strike against buses, even fast and cool ones.

This Week's Flyers

Comments

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.